Skip to content

blindness effects/penalties from different spells--do they stack?

LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,318
Anyone know if the penalties from these two spells stack?

Blindness

School: Illusion/Phantasm
Range: Sight of caster
Components: V
Duration: 10 turns
Casting Time: 2
Area of Effect: 1 creature
Saving Throw: Negates

This spell blinds its target. A saving throw is allowed, and if successful there are no harmful effects. If a victim is blinded, he receives -4 to hit on his attack rolls and has a 4 point Armor Class penalty.

Glitterdust

School: Conjuration/Summoning
Range: 10 yards
Components: V, S
Duration: 4 rounds
Casting Time: 2 rounds
Area of Effect: 10-foot radius
Saving Throw: Special

This spell creates a cloud of glittering golden particles within the area of effect. Those in the area must roll a successful saving throw vs. spell or be blinded (-4 penalties to attack rolls, saving throws, and Armor Class) for 4 rounds. In addition, all within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades. Note that this reveals invisible creatures. The dust fades in 4 rounds.
Post edited by Lemernis on

Comments

  • ajwzajwz Member Posts: 4,122
    edited December 2012
    There is actually a blinded effect in game. This effect doesn't stack if you cast both spells

    You will note that a character who is blinded in game actually only sees 1 square into the fog of war (much more noticable when soloing)
  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,318
    So if the target fails to save against both spells, it's not a cumulative -8 to attack rolls and -8 to AC (plus -4 to saving throws)?
  • ajwzajwz Member Posts: 4,122
    Lemernis said:

    So if the target fails to save against both spells, it's not a cumulative -8 to attack rolls and -8 to AC (plus -4 to saving throws)?

    Nope, only the longest lasting one (i.e. Blindness) would apply.
  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,318
    Okay, thanks!
  • PantalionPantalion Member Posts: 2,137
    It's an interesting point that the save penalty from Glitterdust makes it more likely to successfully cause Blindness, letting you extend the effect much longer than otherwise, which pretty much murders spellcasters.
  • valkyvalky Member Posts: 386
    edited December 2012
    Glitterdust is an overkill spell in BGEE IMO and as mentioned above, without game-changing mods (like SCS) blind is a sure-kill against enemy spellcaster. They could as well just teleport away and give you the loot and XP otherwise, wouldn't make any difference.

    edit: am not quite sure with blind in BG2 / BGEE .. but I think I read somewhere (in case of BG2) it does stack unintentionally, and as BGEE does use the BG2 engine and spells...or it was a subcomponent of that very spell, that simply disables spell-casting, and not just limited the sight.
    [either SCS or fixpack changed it for at least BG2..else blind is kind of harakiri for anything that casts spell]
  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,318
    Pantalion said:

    It's an interesting point that the save penalty from Glitterdust makes it more likely to successfully cause Blindness, letting you extend the effect much longer than otherwise, which pretty much murders spellcasters.

    Yeah, that's a really good point. I always cast Glitterdust first, and then target individually with Blindness just as insurance.
  • SpaceInvaderSpaceInvader Member Posts: 2,125
    edited December 2012
    Probably they stack.
    That's because they are indipendent from the "blindness" effect.
    If you open the spell with Near Infinity you find out that, on failed saving-throw, Blindness gives:

    - -4 AC
    - -4 thac0
    - blindness effect
    - ...


    Edit: also the blindness effects stack. But you can't notice it, since it's just a matter of duration. It's not like you see "less" with 2 of them ;)
  • SpaceInvaderSpaceInvader Member Posts: 2,125
    edited December 2012
    Ops, damn mobile... Double post
  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,318
    I can't remember now how SCS/SCSII dealt with this, but I'd be surprised if David Wallace didn't think of a counter for it.
Sign In or Register to comment.